for this link to an interesting procedural development in this case, dealing with the government's obligation to provide security for defense lawyers to investigate the case, interview witnesses, etc., in Iraq.

Before you die from laughing, read the article, Blackwater defense team seeks security (JMM emphasis added):

By JOSH GERSTEIN | 10/21/09 5:11 AM EDT

Lawyers for five former Blackwater contractors facing manslaughter charges over an alleged massacre in Iraq are demanding that the U.S. government arrange armed security for the defense team as it heads into the dangerous streets of Baghdad to gather evidence and interview witnesses.

The Obama administration could soon face a stark choice: Order U.S. commanders in Iraq to give the defense attorneys a military escort for their trip, or throw into jeopardy the prosecution of one of the worst alleged atrocities of the Iraq war.

The defense lawyers complain that U.S. prosecutors and FBI agents had military help to gather evidence to bring the charges and that the government initially blew off the defense’s request for protection by sending over a list of security contractors derived in large part from Internet searches. ....
....
In a response filed Monday, prosecutors urged [Judge] Urbina to reject the defense request. “The defendants ask this Court to assume a role that would violate the separation of powers; they invite this Court to take the extraordinary step of ordering the Executive to expend its resources (including those of the armed forces) [and] to reorient its overseas missions and priorities,” the Justice Department said.

The Justice Department predicted further disputes if the defense team and military personnel on the ground disagreed about the feasibility of visiting certain places. The government’s response did not detail what security provisions were given to prosecutors and the FBI when they investigated the case. ....
This case does raise a serious issue in criminal prosecutions, whether against AQ or Taliban detainees or against US military or civilians, for offenses requiring formal testimony and evidence from foreign nationals or sources. That has not been an issue in the Gitmo habeas cases because the judges have been accepting statements, declarations and other written summaries from both sides. Those are technically hearsay.

In Federal court criminal prosecutions, the more formal hearsay rules in the Federal Rules of Evidence apply; and in addition, the defense has a right to interview the witnesses listed by the government.

I won't predict what Judge Urbina will do. I have a data point of one - a case where I was court-appointed defense counsel and the prosecution relied on an expert witness at the preliminary hearing to testify on several technical issues. Before trial, I moved for appointment of an expert witness (named his qualifications and costs, etc.). The judge called us into chambers to decide the motion privately. Told me I had a good point; but that my expert would blow his budget for the case. So, he held that no expert testimony from either side would be allowed on the technical issues; saying: I'm probably legally wrong, but what I'm doing is fair. I won the jury trial.

Of course, a similar ruling by Judge Urbina would exclude all of the evidence from Iraq - which would gut the government's case. We shall see.